Author Topic: Is this project really that difficult? (Read 15025 times)

GhostShip · « **Reply #40 on:** August 06, 2011, 06:37:29 pm »

Dont lose heart in us Cutting Edge, its just that this far down the road most of the userbase proposed solutions are ones we are hearing many times over per week and having to repeatedly explain the weaknesses of users often well meant but oversimplified suggestions wins us no prizes either so its a hard job to keep all the folks coming here pleased and feeling part of the networking machine we all love

We have solutions for pretty much all of the problems at this time but we will listen to new ones for sure, maybe a seperate thread would be a good place to undertake such discussion as then folks could also see whether their suggestion has been proposed before and what may have been missed in any summary, we are all in this together and as Largerlout states developers are hard at work daily, we cannot ask any more of such kind folks

cuttingedge · « **Reply #41 on:** August 06, 2011, 06:38:51 pm »

I dont see how that is possible RebelMX. Simply cause its P2P....Our Primaries need a Big Brother system to keep Bad Guys sorted out, which calls for a sorting server which then makes winMX illegal. If flooding seems to come from Primaries own files, ask that Primaries not share files. For peeps that run as Primary, design a separator of sorts that can run as secondary also for their own needs. May be temporary fix at best. This would allow others to identify flooders easily and do what we do to shut them off.

cuttingedge · « **Reply #42 on:** August 06, 2011, 06:48:21 pm »

GS. You have always had a way wit words and wisdom. Enough said....I have been checking in sence problems began and have been patient cause I have faith in our organisation. I dont know what the higher ups have up their sleeves, but I figure if I can come up with a few good points, maybe it could be something that has not been thought of yet....
CE

GhostShip · « **Reply #43 on:** August 06, 2011, 07:12:01 pm »

Quote

I figure if I can come up with a few good points, maybe it could be something that has not been thought of yet....

Exactly the reason I,m here nearly every day to check the forum, we are a community of pretty intelliegent users, even the attackers are pretty savvy in their attacks so my ears are always going to be open to any suggestion that can save time or energy in this long haul, I'm still pleased users are showing they care enough to proffer help, that alone sets our community apart from many others

White Stripes · « **Reply #44 on:** August 06, 2011, 08:54:51 pm »

Quote

Mac number for id of a specific user with registered pach copy on one PC only silly!

mac numbers can be changed.... and many have been reused over the years... the nic in your system may have the same mac address as an 8bit isa nic made in 1988....

you cant lock anything software wise to a specific piece of hardware.... (iphone jailbreak... ps3 jailbreak.... xbox mod etc etc etc)

Quote

The patch needs to be written so that it makes no difference if the "baddies" get a copy of the patch. That is the idea that is being looked into I believe.

whether it can be brought to see the light of day as a stable version is another story.....

RebelMX · « **Reply #45 on:** August 06, 2011, 11:03:04 pm »

It can be done cutting edge as I am personally working on this method itself. Having only been drafted in in the last few days I would hope I have helped and actually suceeded in making some terrific progress. Hopefully GhostShip can support this statement as he sees it across the board.

cuttingedge · « **Reply #46 on:** August 07, 2011, 03:19:37 am »

The patch we have today is a pretty simple animal. I can make sense of alot of it and even manipulate pieces to change functional direction. I've been putzin all day with it. I am by far no programmer, but what I see from my observations is the new patch with new hosts and new redirects has gotta be air tight with no room for putzes like me to be able to make sense of it. It needs to be locked up tight. I dont know how to do that, so I wish everyone working on the project the best of luck!
In the mean time I found only holding 1 or 2 hosts in cache seems to work nice. Make a separate folder for cache pages and swap them to change hosts. And if we can frequently add new hosts or change hosts we stay one step ahead of the flooders. Primaries on new hosts should also share minimum files seen as how that seems to be where the flood files come from.
Again, Best of luck Team MX!

CE

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #47 on:** August 07, 2011, 03:25:49 am »

That seems like good logic, so show us in more detail
I'm a hardware man, not a programmer putz so i can only read and follow, but if the reading is somewhere secure, then thats fine

cuttingedge · « **Reply #48 on:** August 07, 2011, 05:08:19 am »

Bluey_412 PM sent

Bieb · « **Reply #49 on:** August 10, 2011, 01:57:37 am »

An idea that would be very useful for the new patch, or a intermediate patch, so would be magnet links for easier sharing of files and chat rooms. If you think back to the p2prevolution.com days or whatever that domain name was, it definitely is a workable feature.

Examples:

For chat rooms:

mxlnk://WinMXWorld.com%20Help_13A3F042BABE

For files:

mxlnk://b3e9a7226d32d7ec22dea8cb7033bdfe

It is not that difficult to implement, and it would allows linking to chat rooms and files from a website, instant messenger, chat rooms, etc.

White Stripes · « **Reply #50 on:** August 10, 2011, 03:09:03 am »

i suggested such an idea too.... it was quickly shoved to the side...

achilles · « **Reply #51 on:** August 10, 2011, 03:14:29 am »

Bieb, I was saying something similar several months ago. It would be a great message board later on to let users know when new builds of the patch or client are released that way everyone gets notified to upgrade to the latest build. Would a feature like this add additional possible exploits to the patch?

RebelMX · « **Reply #52 on:** August 10, 2011, 08:27:49 am »

Im not sure this could even be implemented in a patch tbh. Sounds more like a new client feature, however whereever its added it will bring bugs with it until its tested to the extremes, normally this can only be done in the real world.

GhostShip · « **Reply #53 on:** August 10, 2011, 08:41:45 am »

Quote

i suggested such an idea too.... it was quickly shoved to the side...

In case you havent thought through why wmw might have not been willing to follow up such an plan let me enlighten you Stripes, offering such links to files here may incur legal liability and for this reason alone we would not undertake this, also as most long time users know the hashes mx uses are not uncorruptible and thus can be faked, when you know this its sheer folly to even think of using them in such a scheme.

If this idea involves something new then please feel free to discuss it, all I ask is that you take on board the simple issues of legality and liability before condemning wmw, if wmw are seen to encourage illegal conduct and handing out links to possibly copyright material we could risk losing the whole site, please note however others are free to set up their own sites if they choose.

White Stripes · « **Reply #54 on:** August 10, 2011, 10:56:48 am »

@GS ... i didnt mean link them here and i dont think the other users who suggested the idea did either...

joshes web room lister would be a whole lot easier to use with clickable room links instead of the oldschool copy/paste and hashlinks could be sent over im programs or on other site forums the same as an arlink or magnet link can...

Lagerlout666 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 10, 2011, 04:48:43 pm »

And website would spring up everywhere, linking with all kinds of porn and malware and it would look a mess like torrents. cant say ive ever had a infected file of winmx ever. Torrents and the sites and PB banners to name one.... Far too many!!!! no thanks, chat lists yes, searchs nahhhhhh

Bieb · « **Reply #56 on:** August 10, 2011, 06:08:40 pm »

Well I mainly wanted it for the chat linking, because it's not easy to get a browser to copy and paste on clicking something. The only web browser that allows the browser direct access to the clipboard is IE, which is a real security vulnerability much like all the other problems with that horrible browser. If I do add copying you have to do it through flash.

PatrickShartz · « **Reply #57 on:** August 10, 2011, 06:42:44 pm »

Quote from: Lagerlout666 on August 10, 2011, 04:48:43 pm

cant say ive ever had a infected file of winmx ever. Torrents and the sites and PB banners to name one.... Far too many!!!! no thanks, chat lists yes, searchs nahhhhhh

I think that comes down to a user's common sense. Just as many viruses can be shared on WinMX as can be shared on some public torrent site. And I myself have even gotten a virus from WinMX back in 2004. You have this misconception that torrents can be wrangled into what is known as the pirate bay. That is simply wrong. Private torrent sites have much better quality files and much more quantity of files than even iTunes or Blockbuster.

Based on investing the protocol documents I have seen, and weeding through what is known as TrapperKeeper source code, these agencies are already running search bots on the network and collecting data, which I have seen myself by creating my own network monitoring tool, are still operating.

If I do say so myself, pointing out this particular packet type (search result):

[ID:4][0x4E:1][Request ID:4][FileName:N][Hash:16][TotalSize:4][Size:4][MetaDataType:1][MetaData:X][Line:2][UserIP:4][UserName:N][Status:N]

Each search result packet contains the ip address of the person sharing it. Since these search bots are collecting this information, it can be claimed without any doubts that WinMX is not any safer than a seed swarm on a public torrent site.

So it's very irritating to see you people continuously claiming and reassuring fellow users that WinMX is superior in its safety, when it clearly is not.

achilles · « **Reply #58 on:** August 10, 2011, 07:06:29 pm »

It's not safe at all anymore, but when it was flourishing it was much safer than the alternatives. Even though they got a cease and desist order they were not targeting individual users on the network unless they were sharing illegal content of a very sick nature. If they were then i haven't seen any evidence of it on the net. Since it has been hacked its a different story. I would not recommend it to anyone now until it has been fixed. The only exception would be running the openNap network, but it doesn't appeal to me.

RebelMX · « **Reply #59 on:** August 10, 2011, 08:08:50 pm »

Actually Patrick your wrong. The ip in that packet is actually the ip of the primary of the person searching for the file. Therefore this data does not actually tell you who is sharing it. There lies the safety net. You can see a search but that cant prove anything!